snowden asylum as well. carney saying russia december appointing decision to grant snowden temporary asylum. last night the president saying he was disappointed in the move. >> the president will still travel to st. petersburg russia and explain the difference between that summit meeting and this bilateral in moscow. >> that's right. the g20 summit has been scheduled for st. petersburg. the president will travel to that and putin will be there as well. the significant is he's not going to meet with him separately either. it's not going to be a separate bilateral summit where they discuss issues. it's been interesting to note when there have been meetings with obama and putin the kind of tension we noticed earlier this

year. their russian counterparts. willie meetings distilled take place? guest: that is right. that meeting today with kerry, hagel, and the russian counterparts will take place as scheduled. the way they're friending it is they will discuss of how we can best make progress moving forward.

also, not indicating there has not been a complete break of some kind, but definitely send a strong message that the relationship has been harmed by the latest incident. -- andn depomed part diplomat talk where the white house called russia's a disappointing decision on edward snowden, what do you read into that? heard that language again and again from jay carney, that the u.s. is deeply disappointed, the president again saying last night that we are disappointed. there have been a lot of complaints from u.s. officials about the way the russians had handled this move, even though there were signs that it might be coming. for instance, they weren't giving a heads-up up that it was taking place. they were surprised by the timing of it, a sense that the relationship is not working well behind the scenes, apart from the public displays, but not necessarily working well publicly either.

what about the one-on- one relationship between president clinton and president obama? -- president been putin and president obama? guest: it has been interesting. they agree to disagree on the subject of stereo. you cannot get more tense in the body language between them. it seemed to be very cold. ae president also expecting personal disappointment and feeling it though. the russians had not lived up to what he had expected of them. treating thely u.s. the way that they had expected based on bilateral relations in the past. the two men, again, not a particularly warm dynamic. there was a lot of discussion after their last appearance about the tension between them. the top ofng from the statements, we have reached a conclusion that there is not enough recent progress to hold a

bilateral meeting with russian president putin, so that meeting has been canceled. let me ask you about the pressure that the white house has been getting, even from democrats. senator chuck schumer last week saying that this summit, this one-on-one meeting should not take place. guest: that is right. you have been hearing a lot of from even more tense congressional leaders moving for the g 20 summit to be moved, which was not happening, or even of the u.s. possibly considering withdrawal from the olympics which is to take place in russia next year. the early reaction to this announcement today has been positive. soong -- chuck schumer saying the president may be registered -- the right decision. he said president putin is acting like an "schoolyard not deserve the respect they bilateral summits would have accorded him. so the early reports are positive from the congressional critics of putin. host: moving ahead, what happens next? guest: it will be interesting to

see how russia reacts to this. there have been questions about -- clearly this move with snowden and with others, standing up to the united states or at least being perceived to stand up to the united states has very well domestically and russia. so the question will be whether officials there may be think that they have gone as far as want to up the ante and they want to be seen as standing their ground. the response from moscow will be very interesting. host: again the headline at thetico.com, obama canceled putin meeting. thank younderbrand, for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. on this will have more on c-span's "washington journal." coming up in just a couple of minutes, we will take you live to the state department. unclear whether the secretary of

state will have any comments on this development. he is scheduled to announce that shaun casey of virginia taking on a new position on the office of the faith-based community initiatives. statennouncement from the department here to live coverage here on c-span television. a reminder, all of our scheduling information is available on our website www.c- span.org. thank you for joining us on this wednesday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> once again, we are live this morning at the state department where shortly secretary of state john kerry is expected to name shaun casey the senior adviser on faith-based community initiatives. to head the state department first office dedicated to out reach to global faith communities and religious leaders. the new office of faith-based focusity initiatives will on engaging with faith-based organizations and religious institutions throughout the world to strengthen u.s. diplomacy and advance america's

interests. couple ofing a minutes late. we will have live coverage when it does get underway here on c- span.

>> once again, live pictures from the state department. secretary of state john kerry excited to name shaun casey to head the state department's first office that is dedicated to out reach the global faith community and religious leaders. wayside this to get underway in just a moment. some news out of the white house this morning, if you are listening to "washington journal" this morning, rushing to in -- president obama planning to cancel a one-on-one meeting with russian president

putin. it is in retribution to russia's decision to grant asylum to nsa security leaguer edward snowden. it is also first-rate with rush on an array of other issues including missile defense and human rights. says obama still plans to attend the g 20 summit, but a one-on-one meeting with president putin has been postponed. president obama will also at a stop in sweden to his early september travel itinerary. in a statement today, senator schumer, democrat of new york, praised the cancellation. "the president clearly made the right decision, president putin is acting like a schoolyard bully and he does not deserve the respect of a bilateral summit." the president is in california today. he appeared on the "tonight show" with jay leno tonight. he will be visiting troops at the marine corps base. we will bring you the president of the remarks live starting at 3:50 eastern here on c-span.

>> ladies intimate, the secretary of state john kerry, and shaun casey, and the executive director of the white ande office of faith-based partnerships, melissa. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much, good morning, everybody. please be seated. thank you very much. sorry to be a moment late. i apologize. really delighted to be here this singular,r this historic initiative. it is a great pleasure for me to be taking part in this. i'm convinced that all of you agree that one of the toughest challenges that we face in terms

of global diplomacy and relationships around the world between peoples nowadays, from the secretary in a strife to the challenges of many intractable, frozen conflicts, to the challenges of simply understanding people, one people to another, or even monumental challenges, like the sectarian strife that we see carrying -- tearing countries and regions apart, as well as challenges of global -- global climate change, which really is a challenge to our responsibilities as the guardians, safe corridors of god's creation. as secretary of state, and before that, as a senator for 29 years, i've met with faith-based leaders all across the world.

i had the privilege obviously of running for president of the united states, met with many members of our faith-based community in our country. i met with people of all religions, of all life philosophies and belief systems. and that experience has only reaffirms my belief that there is much more that unites us and should unite us than divides us. gandhi called the world's religions beautiful flowers from the same garden. i had the privilege of giving an address at yale university a number of years ago to a of evangelicals from imams,america, and clerics, from the muslim world. gathering, you might think. for three days, people worked

and struggled with the effort to find a common ground. and there is common ground between the abraham it face and in fact between the abrahamic faiths and all religions and philosophies, whether you are talking about hindu or otherianism or any of the many of the worlds different approaches to our existence here on the planet and to our relationship with the supreme being. virtuousese faiths are , and they are -- most of them -- tied together by the golden rule as well is fundamental concerns about the human , abouton, about poverty relationships between people, our responsibilities each to each other. and they all come from the same human heart.

citizens, and particularly people in public about howybody talks we draw strength from the example of our faith communities , but not enough people actually translates those words into action or policies or life philosophies. and so i think, whether it is our teachers, activists, religious leaders, who worked to , we learn a great deal, which stands in stark contrast to violent extremists who seek to destroy and never talk about building a school or a community or providing health care to anybody.

inwe need to recognize that a world where people of all faiths are migrating and mingling like never before, where we are this global community, which we always talk about, we ignore the global impact of religion, in my judgment, at our peril. i have talked at length with people liking a bella in saudi arabia, or prince ghazi in jordan and others who engage in interfaith efforts, all of whom recognize that their religion, islam, has to a large measure been hijacked by people who have toreal depth with respect what faith in fact preaches, but who interpreted in ways that , andpeople to conflict even to violence.

so it is not really enough just to talk about a better dialogue. i think we have to stand up and deliver one. and that is why i'm very proud today to announce the creation of the office of faith-based community initiatives here at the state department. its mission is as clear as it is compelling. it is to engage more closely with faith communities around the world with the belief that we need to partner with them to solve global challenges, that there is an enormous partnership i believe there for the asking. we already know that have a number of leaders here at the state department that work on issues related to religion, including our ambassador at large for international religious freedom. i want to say that i have great respect for and enormous gratitude for their efforts, and

these leaders are important and will remain equally as important, but i believe that their work will be enhanced by this effort. and the office of faith-based community initiatives will grow our ability to be able to reach out to more communities and to create greater understanding between peoples and countries. the office grows out of the recommendations of the state religion and foreign policy working group, and i want to thank its members, many of whom are here today, for their leadership. it also grows out of u.s. strategy in religious leader and faith community engagement, which underscores the obama administration's commitment to working with communities of faith to advance our shared goals. a momentill hear in from our representative from the white house with respect to that.

engagement i the am talking about is a two-way street. our job at the state department is not just to proclaim or stand up and pontificate about the things that we want -- we have to listen to people about the things that they want. has playedere today a valuable role in promoting the development of countries or preventing conflicts, advancing human dignity all across the globe. with launched this office a clear intent to keep our door open and to work as cooperatively as possible with all of you. i am genuinely excited about the possibilities. around the world from egypt to ethiopia, from peru to pakistan, aregious leaders every day taking on some of the toughest challenges that we face.

they are healing communities. they are providing counsel to families. they are working in partnership with governments for the enduring health of our planet. and its people. so i say to my fellow state department employees, all of them, wherever you are, i want to reinforce a simple message. i want you to go out and engage religious leaders and faith- based communities in our day-to- day work. strong relationships with them. and listen to their insights and understands the important contributions that they can make individually and that we can make together. you will have the support of this department and in doing so. and you will have great leadership from my friend, dr. shaun casey, who is going to lead the charge to integrate our engagement with faith communities with our diplomacy and with our development work. 2005.shaun back in

mike mccurry, who i see sitting back here, introduced us at a dinner. we became friends in that process, problem -- pilgrims on a similar mission, if you will. a professor of theology, who has always been interested in politics, and a politician who was always had a lifelong interest in religion. in fact, if i went back to college today, i think i would in comparative religion because that is how integrated it is in everything that we are working on and deciding siding and thinking about in life today. ,e have had many discussions and over the years i have come to appreciate shaun is a deeply thoughtful person who cares about the place of faith in our public life. i want to emphasize this to everybody because i know the question will be out there. a departure from -- is this a

departure from the norm? > no. we approaches with a full understanding of thomas jefferson's understanding and admonition about the wall of separation between church and state. but what we're doing is guided by the conviction that we have to find ways to translate our faiths into efforts that unify for the greater good. that can be done without crossing any lines whatsoever. one of my favorite passages from what shaunre sums up and i think this effort is really all about, it is a familiar gospel of mark in which jesus says to his disciples, for even the son of man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many. i believe that public leadership is now and always have been and .hould be a form of service

it requires a bona fide effort to give to others and do -- and do for others, and it is the kind of commitment that shaun has example five throughout his life, which has been selfless and devoted and heartfelt. each of us, i believe, need to do our best to answer this call to service, and to help each commonnjury with a spirit of obedience, humility, and love. i am enormously grateful that shaun has answered that call. he has been willing to come into the department to help us andgrate these policies really to magnify, augment, grow our capacity to meet the challenges of this planet. no one would sit here today, or anywhere else and suggest that we're doing such a good job everywhere that we don't need to bring more people to the table. it is clear that the numbers of failed states and failing states

and growing youthful populations around the world that feel disenfranchised and disconnected and unable to find jobs or get the education they need -- we have work to do together, and we need everybody at the table, and that is what this is about. ladies and gentlemen, dr. shaun casey. [applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary, for your kind remarks. i am humbled that you have asked me to help launch this initiative, and i'm thankful to you for the opportunity to contribute to your work as secretary of state. i see so many of my friends in this audience. i am not going to begin to call names or we would be here very long time, but i am deeply touched that you were here. ofm blessed by the fruit long and deep conversations i've had, so thank you and bless you

for coming. i want to recognize my wife and my daughter, sarah, thank you for your love, patience, toleration that they have given to me over the years. [applause] yes, please. but i am deeply touched that you were all here. yearscretary, several ago, you and i started a conversation about the rich, diverse, complicated public invocations that religious belief -- complications that religious belief in progress -- in practice. some believe that religion poisons everything, while others were saying that religion would save and solve everything. you do, however, that the reality was somewhere in between. i remember thinking at the time how unusual it was for a public figure to see the potential in and the power of religious poverty,ckling extreme convincing people to combat global climate change, fighting for global human rights, mitigating conflict, and

building peace, even at a time when others focus on those religious folks who committed acts of violent extremism, perversely claiming justice in the name of their own faith. from that day forward, i admired your willingness to defy the conventional wisdom that purelyd religion was a private, personal choice in the community founded by faith must be entirely left outside the discussion of policy. that is why today engage in these communities in the context of policies have always struck me as being a matter of a very great and deep importance. let me briefly describe why we are expanding religious engagement and how we will go about doing that engagement. the answer to the why question is straightforward. faithlly just leaders and shape their environment, they our own foreign- policy concerns here in the united states. the unitedtial for

states to understand them and bring them into our diplomacy efforts. the obama administration has emphasized me out that they need to bring strong relationships with the religious actors and to collaborate with them on a variety of fronts. prevention to promoting human rights to fostering development. the presence of my good friend melissa rogers here from the white house office of faith- based and neighborhood partnerships is evidence of the commitment from the obama administration from the outset in this arena. how, then, will we proceed to do this form of engagement? first of all, we will ensure their engagement efforts will be consistent with the united states constitution and other laws both in terms of the sphere and letter of the law. second, we will collaborate with the immense talent already working in the state department in terms of areas that specs -- aspects. secretary kerry has worked for the creation of this new office. let me mention some of the people who are already working

very hard in this space. ambassador at large for international religious freedoms , susan johnson cook. special envoy to the organization, were shot hussein. had hussain. ira forman. special representative to muslim communities. not to mention the regional and functional bureaus and our officers serving at posts around the world. i am deeply impressed by the depth of talent and commitment already in this building on this range of religious engagement issue. our collaboration with my office is not to design and create a .ew silo we are seeking to multiply the engagement with religion across the bureaus and offices of this great organization. fair, wewe seek to be seek to be accessible and transparent in our engagement.

among other things, we have much to learn from our partners across the globe. our engagement has to be a two- way or sometimes multiway dialogue. so that we can make process toward our mutual goals. of reinholdd today niebuhr, a man who walked these halls some 60 years ago, trying to dispenses advice to anybody who would listen to him at the ranged through the hallways here. especially that how the united states should navigate the complex foreign-policy in the admin -- the avarice -- in the aftermath of world war ii and during the birth pangs of what we now know as the cold war. i think we find ourselves today in a similarly complex in between time as was the case in the late 1940's. niebuhr feared at that age that it would leave the country

pride in ourps a own virtue, and the absence of a of how to negotiate a post-world war ii plat as well as a communist plot. in contrast, he was preaching a message of chastened wisdom, in which the united states government and gays in a slow and sometimes difficult prizes of diplomacy, willing to courageously pursued justice and peace while exercising american leadership in a very muddled and confused world. niebuhrto think that what approval of our efforts today as we to navigate some very perilous times. thank you very much. [applause] and now i want to introduce my friend, melissa rogers, director

of the white house faith-based office and neighborhood partnership. melissa. [applause] >> thank you so much, shaun. good morning. i am honored to be here today. let me thank secretary kerry for his leadership, and my friend, shaun casey, for the leadership he will provide any days and years ahead. secretary kerry has chosen the right person for this important path. i want to thank everyone, including the many who are in this room, who have labored for years to bring this day about. this is your day, too. and it is a cause for celebration for all of us. let me say a word of thanks for your visions and your work. for many people here in the united states and around the world, faith is a fundamental part of their identity. it shapes to they are and how

they understand the world around them. it provides a sense of community and a network of support. ofhave seen the power religion throughout human history, and our own country, we see religious leaders join with others and champion causes like abolition, civil rights, and the eradication of poverty. in so doing, these advocates have often led our nation to heed the better angels of its nature. similarly, around the world on issues ranging from health to education to conflict prevention , religious and other civil society leaders are tackling some of our most pressing challenges. they help create more peaceful and secure communities. know all too well, there are also times when religion is abused to promote violence and destabilize community spirit of the potential for religious communities to spark both positive and negative movements makes it a central for the

united states to understand these communities and to engage with them. as the state department doesn't work around the world, it must have a firm grasp of these dynamics, and it must know how to address them in ways that are informed and intelligent. shaun's leadership, this new office will help the department to accomplish these goals. also spearhead a new administration strategy that encourages engagement with the religious and other communitiy actors to advance three objectives. first, promoting sustainable development and a more effective humanitarian response. civil society organizations and leaders, including religious ones, are addressing key issues such as poverty reduction, hiv/aids prevention, and child survival. withrking in partnership

religious and other community leaders, and with other governmental agencies of course usaid, we hope to better protect the most vulnerable among us. and by ensuring that humanitarian assistance programs are mindful of the very important religious aspects in a context where these ribbons were administered, we hope to under -- overcome some of the misunderstanding surrounding our assistance. the second objection is advancing pluralism and human rights, including the protection of religious freedom. our engagement with religious and other civil society leaders should strive to promote pluralism and respect the human rights of all people, including members of minority or marginalized groups. thatwe understand sometimes civil society leaders and institutions may disagree with our positions on certain issues, but we are committed to having the conversation.

increasing out of engagement -- will help us to underscore the universality of these critical rights. here at the new outfits, of course we work closely with the office of international religious freedom. the third objective is preventing, mitigating, and preventing violent conflict. while it is critical to understand the ways in which religion can be manipulated to exacerbate conflict, religion is not an inherent source of conflict or violent extremism. strategic engagement with religious leaders can help us to break cycles of violence conflict. shaun and secretary kerry has said, a guiding principle for all this work will be that our actions must be consistent with the united states constitution.

canoyees of our government and should engage faith-based leaders and communities on u.s. policy priorities, just as they do other civil society leaders and communities. at the same time, our precious religious freedoms guarantee that the first amendment mean that we must observe special rules when we engage religious actors and matters, such as ensuring governmental neutrality toward faith. all diplomatic and consular posts will receive guidance and continuing assistance on these important issues. from the start, the obama administration has emphasized building strong relationships with religious and other civil society leaders, and working with them on a variety of issues. it has already been mentioned that the state department has conducted a dialogue with civil society, a project that includes policyigious and foreign working groups. this group has helped lead us to this day. and it will continue to be a

valuable resource. in addition to our own white house office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, many federal agencies have centers for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships that regularly work with community organizations, both religious and secular, to serve people in need. by the way, i would like to and -- kellydubois who have provided terrific leadership on these issues for many years. thus, we are building on a strong foundation as we see to institutionalize our outreach across departments and agencies to make engaging religious and other civil society leaders a routine part of the way we do business. and under shaun's leadership, i have no doubt that this new office is going to play a key role in advancing that agenda. of course, to do this work effectively, we will need your help.

we are so grateful for this new opportunity that this office and the strategies provide to partner with you in new ways, and we will look forward to working with you to advancing the common good in the days ahead. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for coming. you are dismissed. [laughter] that --d me >> how are you? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> at this event comes to a close, a quick reminder that if you missed any of what happened here this morning, you can see at any time at the c-span video library. go to www.c-span.org. some news this morning, in a statement the white house saying president obama has decided to postpone the scheduled a september meeting with russian president vladimir putin after concluding that there had not been enough progress made on the bilateral agenda to make the meeting worthwhile. given our lack of progress on issues such as missile defense, trading, commercial relations, global issues and human rights and civil society in the last few months, we have informed the

russian government we believe it would be more constructive to postpone the summer and into we have more results from our shared agenda. jay carney, the white house press secretary, said in a statement. he added russia's disappointing decision to grant kimberly -- temporary asylum to mr. snowden was part of the decision. reaction from senator chuck schumer today. "the president clearly made the right decision. president putin is acting like a schoolyard bully and does not does deserve the respect they bilateral summit would have accorded him." president obama appeared on the "tonight show" last night. >> domestic spying program, what we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an e-mail address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threats. that information is useful, but

what i've said before, you know, i want to make sure i repeat, and that is -- we should be skeptical about the potential encroachments on privacy. none of the revelations show that the government has actually abuse these powers, but they are pretty significant powers. to congresslking and civil libertarians and others about our there are additional ways that we can make sure that people know nobody is listening to your phone calls. but we do want to make sure that after a boston bombing, for example, that we have got to see phone numbers of those two brothers, we want to be able to make sure that they call anybody else, other networks in new york, are their network self -- are there networks elsewhere that we have to roll up? we want to make sure that there is oversight. i want -- i think we can make sure we are properly balancing our liberty and security. >> that is the president last night.

he remains in california today visiting with troops and their families at camp pendleton marine corps base. we will bring in his remarks live as 3:50 eastern here on c- span. a little bit later, "new york photojournalists talks about the untold stories of iraq, 10 years after the u.s. invasion of iraq. bureausit -- as news are closing their baghdad bureaus. he and other journalists sat down to discuss iraq e coverage and its effect on journalists. span willwing that, c- host a live town hall discussion to examine media coverage of wars. topics will include conflict and social media, the relationship between government and journalists, censorship, and national security. we will also open our phone line to get your calls and reactions on facebook and twitter. that is all tonight beginning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight, on c-span's encore

presentation of "first ladies." >> if you are an invited guest of the madisons or management circle of friends, you would be invited into the dining room from the drawing room. here, dolly madison would in an and usual setting for the period , would sit at the head of the table. her husband, james, with that at the center of the table. dolly would direct the conversation, and games would be able to engage in intimate or lively conversation with the people to his immediate right and left. is set forable today eight people. but there could be as many as 20 people serve in the dining room. i would not be unusual. indeed, dolly madison considered dining here to be so much more relaxing than entertaining in washington. she said she was less worried serving 100 people here than 25 in washington. >> the encore presentation of our original series "first ladies" continues tonight at

9:00 eastern on c-span. coming up next, a discussion on national security and civil liberties from the aspen security forum. speakers include washington post contributor barton gillman, who broke the nsa prism program story. dennis blair, a former national intelligence director, and former national intelligence director negroponte. this lasts about an hour. [applause] >> i think it is safe to say that when we set up this pounds -- this panel summit to go, my fellow panelists did not think they would be sitting on a panel with guys who communicated clandestinely with edward snowden and receive a potential amount of information from him, and i am, with their knowledge and consent, going to revise and extend the subject of today's panel to include considerable amount about what we have learned recently about the nsa

and what we should think of it. my fellow panelists do not aid in the introduction. i will just mention that ambassador negroponte was the first director of national intelligence at -- during the 2007, during5 to which there was a transition from the bush administration warrantless surveillance programs to be approved surveillance program, the passage of the protect america act and the beginning of the prism program that i first wrote about two months ago. in the "washington post." had some jobs in 2009, 2010, which coincided with a substantial period of expansion of prism, in the immediate aftermath of the and acts. the fisa i want to start off, though,

admiral, with something related, that touches on the advertising subject of the panel today. certainly the intelligence community has an enormous number am prepareds, and i to accept him having read some of the documents, you know, i am reconfirmed in this is that there are a lot of things that cannot be talked about. never the less, while we recently learned that we are collecting a lot more documents than the public was aware of, the u.s. government was unable to connect the dots sufficiently on the tsarnaev brothers, even though they had been brought to the attention in advance. what do you make of that, and what do you see as the implications and what we just heard from asked carter brought the recent departmentalization of intelligence information? >> there are really two assets

of this. one is having the information available so that it can be collected, analyzed, and turned the other isand the process of bringing it together. where relevant information is available have that the oldpread, days when you could -- if you could break into the ultra program and get the key message, that would make a difference in whether you won or lost that engagement. we simply have to go somebody different places. it turns out that as a reality, we can gather a lot more than we actionableto intelligence. this is a function of a lot of things. we do, however, have to continue to get this information into analysts. we had to the machines that will the enormousl with volume, and then we have to have these good people who can go beyond what machines can do to

use the innovation, the training to get it done. possibleg said, it is for the intelligence committee to do everything perfectly and yet for something bad to happen in the united states. and the measures that the country would have to take in order to prevent those sorts of things from happening would go beyond the bounds of intrusiveness that we want our government to have into our lives. boundary on how much information we want the government to do so we can make them safe, and how much do you want to keep the respective civil liberties and privacy of americans in. and that is something that we have to work on and debate, and where it is right now, we can stop something, we cannot stop

some other things, and that is where we have it. we don't want to i think we need to get better at using what we have to try to fend off these actions. the re-llow up about compartmentalization, sound like a lot of what was brought into the job those created for you, which was the obligation to share the tearing down of stovepipes, so that needs to be rebuilt. -- >> first of all, that is still important, and i think sharing is still critical to the sharing of information on a real-time basis. i think i have to wait and see what the real damage assessment is, of what mr. snowden did. i'm not sure exactly. obviously, he had access to a

lot of information, but i think we should bear in mind it is worth repeating that hindsight is 20 20 vision. you can take just about any event that has occurred and look at it retrospectively and say why did i not see that? so i think that most things that were probablydone reasonably done in this case and others, and there are situations which will escape us, and incidents will occur. but the fact of the matter is, i think the country since 2001 is considerably safer than right after 9/11 because of many of the efforts that have been made to integrate and improve our intelligence. i feel that nowhere was that on theillustrated than battlefields of iraq and afghanistan, where i think we really perfected the art of integrating and forward

deploying our multiple intelligence capabilities so that we could bear down on targets. and basically dismantling al qaeda and iraq was a phenomenal a compliment that was made in part by this integration and reform process, and i think just also by the great advances in technology that have occurred during the past decade. >> let me come back to something that did happen on your watch. 2006, we now know, the government went to the pfizer court and said, we have a new --ea -- went to the fisa court about what the section of the patriot act means, when we have idea, we can do that under secret. it could get all the records of all telephone calls.

international, national, and purely local. how does that fit with the boundaries the american people would expect, in terms of privacy? >> it is under debate whether we have gone too far in storing and holding that information. maybe congress will revisit that. why would we do it? you asked us about the boston marathon. one reason you would do it is, you have all that data. you detained a tsarnaev brother, and find out the phone numbers of people they have been in touch with in chechnya, and bounce them against these numbers you have on file. maybe you will find other people who have been following the same numbers in the database.

we have to emphasize this. it is not monitoring the content of american conversations. never has been. never will be. you can only do that if you have got a warrant from a judge. >> why couldn't you, having received the tip about the brothers, sent that to the telephone companies and so on? let's have your records. let's have the metadata. why collect it all? >> we would have preferred to have done that. we went to the information companies and said, we would like to be able to come to you with a request, based on probable cause, and find out if this number has talked to any international numbers.

the telacommunications companies said, you want us to store all that data, all that time, in a formula you can quickly access? we said, yes. that is what we need. they said, no, these are billing records. we just keep them for the time we need them. we said, can we pay you to do that? they said, no we cannot do that. there was a lot of mechanical pieces of this. >> you could tell them to hand over all the records on a daily basis. why can't a fisa court compel them to keep the records? they already keep them for 18 months. how long do you need it? >> a lot longer than 18 months. >> that is the whole point. once you pick somebody up who has been involved in some untoward act, and has been communicating with parts of the world which may have originated this activity, you want to be able to go back and find out if the numbers in chechnya or was

waziristan have been calling the united states. maybe that is the debate in congress. you would limit the ability to research this issue, if you were no longer able to keep these records. it will not be for another purpose. >> 250. times ate number of those records were accessed in 2012. multiple-choice. under 300 according to the administration. >> let's talk about what that means. we just heard from a chrysalis yesterday, at a skeptical house committee, that contact chaining all those numbers -- when you pull those numbers, it is two or three hops.

this is the danger of a reporter doing math, let -- but let me give it a try. suppose the median number of unique contacts for people making phone calls is 100 over the course of a year.three hops means 100 times 100 times 100 -- this is approximately the population we have alled states. heard about six degrees of separation connecting everybody on the planet. three hops goes very, very far. when they say they have only pulled 300, with a contact chain on those -- at least tens of millions, including a fair amount of overlap. but probably hundreds of millions of people. and it's based on trying to understand the probable cause that's being a threat to the united states has done that we ought to know about. so it's based on -- it's not based on that. >> but you justify this but i

want to talk about the honesty, the straight forwardness of the public debate. if you say 300 -- for example, the f.b.i. was giving out only when mandated to do so the number of times it used section 215 over a period of years. so in 2009 when this program was in full swing they said orders. y submitted 21 it turns out you can get something on the order of 1 trillion telephone records. that's a hypothetical possibility, ten to the power of whatever, five, that's -- it's just math. it's not what's actually happening. >> it is. they're doing contact to two or three. so it could be a few as 3 billion records that are

accessed when you go after 300 targets but it's a much larger umber. i would be more encraged if i had

by the nast there is not a recourse that allows me to find out if i've suffered any of these harms whether this is the cause of it. >> come on you reporters when you have a sniff that something s not right you pursue it. it's a very careful program if there's anything tattooed on the heads of people who go to work in the intelligence business is we do not spy on mericans unless in a

court-ordered legal way. and my experience on the inside is the men and women take that very seriously. they check themselves every step of the way and not rummaging around in trillions f records. they are pursuing specific leads to see if they pose a hreat. >> maybe the question i could ask you, besides any issues of specific harm, because in any ind of surveillance program, someone saying they're stalking their ex wife or an abuse of can ogram, can we trust,

the american public trust very, very powerful and secretive institutions to check hemselves? we entrust an enormous amount of power. is it enough to say that they're going to watch hemselves? >> it is not just them watching themselves. when keith alexander, who was the director of nsa, took me to visit the floor of these operations, it is not only the people who are monitoring the situation. the fbi is there. lawyers are there. there are many safeguards. there are signs plastered all over the place, the definition of what constitutes an american person. there is congressional oversight. there is an inspector general. there are all kinds of safeguards built into this. i remember george bush, when he talked about this program, when it was first revealed by the new york times. he said, when al qaeda calls

somebody in the united states, i want to know who they are calling. that is kind of the underlying philosophy of this program. we are talking again -- it always intends to spill over into people thinking, maybe we are monitoring the actual content of their conversations, and we are not all stop this is metadata. it is effectively the outside of the envelope that is put in your mailbox. it is that information that is on the envelope. and the date stamp in the postage stamp. >> would you have people believe that metadata has no significant privacy interest? i would rather, if i had a choice -- i hope not to have either of these choices -- of having every phone conversation i have for 30 days listens to, which is impractical, to have a large number of people doing that, or all my metadata

collected for 30 days. i would much rather. >> if it was collected by proctor and gamble or colgate, i would be worried. sometimes, we do not think about -- where is the real privacy problem in this country? i am not sure it is with your federal government. i think it may be more with how the data is used in the private sector for marketing and other purposes. i would worry if my metadata was available to people pursuing purely commercial purposes, who want to target me for their sales pitches and everything else come up marketing strategies and so forth. that is not what this is being used for. they could not care less. >> can i help your devil's advocacy? >> supersecret double dvocacy. >> let me say seriously that i believe that we, those of us who are senior officials in the intelligence community, and so

on, should have done a much better job of explaining the eneral principles of these programs without going into titillating individual cases, which do nothing but help our adversaries. it is kind of pay me now or pay me later. when something happens and you are operating from a defensive crouch of a snowed in revelation, saying, we are ok -- trust us -- if we had explained these, while maintaining security of things that have to be secret, i think we would be in better off shape. as it is, we are whipsawed by revelations into grudgingly putting out pieces of it that make it appear as if we have lots more to hide. i strongly advocate a much more proactive intelligence service. what we are trying to do in the

nited states is unprecedented, degree of secrecy, and maintain to conduct an espionage operation which inherently choirs -- requires quite a degree of secrecy, and maintain what we treasure about our democracy -- he have to recognize that, and be more forthcoming to take the mystery out of intelligence operations while presenting -- while protecting the secrets. i wish we had been sitting down with people like you for five years, instead of waiting until snowed in -- snowden gives you a lot of information, all -- almost all of which is elf-serving. >> that is the tradition. >> i think we could do that much better while maintaining the secrets. the general -- the job of the nsa is to try to listen in on conversations to discover threats to the united states.

what a secret, you know? that is their job. that is what they get paid to do. they have to go into an exploding area of information technology to do that job. they have to talk to the companies that do this. what a surprise. they have to make arrangements with other governments to have access. what a surprise. all of this stuff, we ought to be talking about in general terms, while not saying, by the way, it is the fourth cable pair on this transit limit -- transatlantic cable. >> are you prepared to say -- this would be very different from what the obama administration is saying, as recently as yesterday. the general counsel of the dni was asked yesterday in a house hearing, do you think you could keep secret indefinitely that you are collecting call data records from all americans? he said, we tried.

are you prepared to say that that was a mistake, that there should have been a debate at the time, that you collectively decided that the law allowed you to collect all the records of who communicates with home, both telephony and internet data, and a substantial amount f content, and not all of it with orders -- should that have been a public debate? >> i think you are misusing the word collect. the proper word here is store in able to be able to have access to when permission is granted. sing those terms, yes. i think we could have talked about that. >> i think this is undercutting your case. if you could actually go, once a day, 23 phone companies that have substantially all the phone records, and receive, in your hand, a set of dvd's

constituting all the records of a previous day, and put them in a tank somewhere, and say that is not collection -- you are not speaking english as most people understand it. >> i would say you are completely speaking english as most people understand it. there are things that you keep that you have certain procedures which you can then get into. if you collect something, you have got it. to collect something is going in and using the technical means you have in order to gather information that people think is private, and that you do not have. that is collection. storing under a court order is an entirely different thing. i think we should ultimately talk about what the government has access to, the conditions under which it is stored, the conditions under which it can then be accessed. that ought to be talked about. >> you are saying that if you frame it right, they should

have been, we are ingesting, but not collecting all these records. this is why we think it is important. these are the safeguards. we are not going to get into all the details, but this is the big picture. >> i would not use words like ingesting. but i would say that setting up a system so that you can interrogate these records when you have rubble cause over so many years should have been put out. if that does not hold up, if congress does not support it, if the president does not authorize it, we do not do it. if they do, which the congress did without public debate -- congressmen are not pushovers, and they did authorize it. i think it is correct. >> ambassador, it is clearly your view, the dominant view in the administrations of two parties, that these programs

are fine. they are natural. they are understandable. it is only a misunderstanding that would lead people to be alarmed. are you concerned about the substantial wedge between that point of view and what appears to be a growing amount of shock in public opinion? if you take yesterday's hearing to be representative, a view by a substantial majority of members of congress, even on these committees, that they had no idea you were interpreting your authorities that way. is it a problem that the public is so out of sync with what you think is natural and normal and acceptable? >> that is the way the situation looks now. i think the admiral was making the point that this was legal. it was under a court order. it was being carried out under relevant legislation. if congress wants to change the legislation, they can change it.

i am not disturbed, nor am i shocked. it seems to me that this is a natural part of the american political process. practices may, in some way, change. that is not going to particularly disturbed me either. signals intelligence is very important. but it is not the only collection methodology we have got. there is human intelligence. there is geospatial. intelligence is a broad and complex business. to come back to the original opic of our meeting -- i think we are much better off, in terms of the way we integrate that information. i think technology has been our friend. we have gained vast experience from the wars we have been involved in. i think we are very well

positioned to deal with collecting and analyzing information, with regard to threats we might face in the uture. global threats change, certainly, and there is going to be a discussion of that later today. but i think we have done very, very well against assessed threats that we have in confronting during the past few years. the intel community is in very good shape. all of us worry about these funding issues. when you hear about sequesters and their impacts on things, and furloughing people whose jobs are critical to national security, that is a source of great concern. i was thinking about it, reflecting on what general welsh was saying yesterday about the size of the united states air force, recalling my own tour of duty in vietnam. when i left saigon in january of 1968, the united states had

520,000 troops in vietnam alone. that is the size of the entire nited states army today. the proportion of money being spent for defense and intelligence in our overall budget, as a proportion of the national budget, has declined substantially since the end of world war ii, the cold war, and so forth. i get worried when we sit here thinking we are going to be able to squeeze water out of a rock by doing things smarter and with less money. i think we have cut back to the bare bone with the size of our american forces, the amount of money we are devoting to national security. if we want to continue to play the role that ashton carter was describing, being one of the referees in the east asia-pacific region, with rising companies like china -- countries like china and india, we are not going to be able to do it with this

sequester-minded approach to national security. we have to get back to an approach to our budget and national security that mirrors the responsibilities we say we have got all stop -- have got. >> if i could comment about your point on the outrage about what we are doing -- i have into enough rodeos to think i have got it right. when an incident happens and i see outrage that we e t aggressive enough in collecting intelligence and connecting the dots, i know that six months later, there will be outrage that we are collecting too much information. you kind of steer down that path. i think we would be better off, as i said, staring down that path with more knowledge, both for the audiences that care and follow closely, and to the general public, if we made clear the path we are striking between resources, civil liberty and privacy, and

getting the job done was being balanced in a straightforward fashion by patriotic americans. >> get your questions ready. you are not lawyers. but you have had a lot of lawyers talking to you over a lot of years. one of the points being made generally on the panel is, these programs are legal. therefore, they are fine. it is not clear to me that we know that. it is clear that they have then approved by fisa courts. but every effort of outsiders to bring this to a court of eneral jurisdiction has been strongly opposed by both recent administrations. when the obama administration succeeded in getting the clapper case thrown out for

lack of standing, it said the plaintiffs have no evidence that there is large-scale collection or dragnet surveillance, or that anything to do with their communications has been collected. that is literally true, but it does not look good in retrospect. why not allow any of the 18 new lawsuits, including one by the electronic privacy information center, who say we want to test the lawfulness of a claim that all american call records could possibly be relevant to authorized investigation. why not allow that to get to court? why not allow the supreme court to make a decision on it? >> the supreme court has ruled that business records of companies are not fourth amendment protected information. pieces of this have gotten into the outside court.

but what i would say is that when you get to intelligence operations like military operations, in which you require a degree of secrecy to be effective for the larger job, you come up with alternative procedures to what we apply to other forms in which classification is not important. you bring in good people. you set up adversarial circumstances. you use the principles we use in completely open issues. but you have to do it within a closed bubble in order to continue to be effective. my experience is, we do that very robustly. if you came in as a director of ommunications, you would get a clearance. that would be the same bart who is nasty and suspicious and oncerned about things.

>> that is on my business card. >> we replicate the procedures that america follows of authorizing stuff by legislation, setting decisions by court, supervising it by inspector general's. but it has to be done in a secret way in order that enemies do not find out about it and could therefore it made it. that is the way it goes. >> and do not exclude the possibility of new legislation. if congress wants to fix it, they have oversight abilities to hear all this material in classified form and decide whether they want to tweak the law. >> you would prefer to see, i suspect, open debate before the supreme court, but you could go the congressional route to address the concerns you have raised. >> i guess they each have their own functions. one determines what the legislation should be.

one determines what is constitutional. my preference would be that both get their shot at it. but that is just me. i am going to ask only one more, because i am told there are 20 minutes remaining, and i want to give you time on the floor. briefly, would each of you give your observations on civil liberties oversight, a board essentially created when you came in, and still essentially moribund when you left office in 2010? is that a viable way of overseeing whether privacy and civil liberties are being honored? >> we did not move very fast, but we did create it during my time. it lasted for a while, and then i think it fell into disuse, and now it has been revived. i do not know what experience you had. >> it was dead when i was there. ut i was in favor of it.

the more checks you have in this business -- because i agree with your basic point that misused, the power of the intelligence community can cause great damage. the more checks you have on it, the better. i think it should be there. the president's intelligence advisory board performs some of those functions. it oversees the entire intelligence community from a separate viewpoint. if it sees something in the civil liberties and privacy area that do not smell right, it can pursue that. i had discussions with members of the board, which is very active. one more organization with that charter would be good. >> raise your hands. wave for a microphone. and keep it brief. someone over here. range shirt. >> thank you. cbs.

just one data point on the previous discussion -- i have a question that is not related. the supreme court ruled, i believe, that there is no expectation of privacy on metadata. i think that is another factor in this whole discussion. my question is really addressed to both of you in your capacity s former chief of dni. in terms of domestic surveillance and domestic intelligence -- no question, our international intelligence has improved. but notably, there has been the hassan case, the marathon bombing in boston. these were domestic individuals that were in contact with people overseas, and we did not catch those. how did those slip through the cracks? how do we connect those dots? how could we have done that better? and is the fbi really capable of doing domestic

intelligence? >> i think one of the things that has happened over time, the last decade or two, is that the definition of the national security community has really broadened. during the cold war, it was state, defense, cia. if you had that group of agencies together, you pretty much had the situation covered. now, you have dhs. one of the major features of intelligence reform, in the commission report by silberman and robb, was to try to rope the fbi more into this process, because they had a habit of delegating investigations to the field. everybody was doing their stuff on a yellow legal pad and never sharing it with anybody lse. i think there is more after this decade that has passed --

more of a culture of intelligence in the fbi. i think that has been one of the accomplishments of intelligence reform. the next big thing has been empowering and capacity to the dhs to do more and better, which was a brand-new agency in 002, 2003. i think that is now moving, and a lot more has happened. but these things are a process that cannot be accomplished overnight. i think it is much better than it was, but it is going to take time. when you are thinking of local tribal entities, you are thinking of 17,000 police forces in this country. we have a very divided police authority. monitoring this stuff is not easy, domestically. those of us who have dealt with foreign policy and foreign intelligence always approach

the issue of domestic intelligence with great skittishness. i would say it was somewhat outside of our comfort zone, how to deal with this, for all the reasons we have spent almost an hour discussing. >> over here. >> thank you. i am with cbs. we have heard from admiral blair. you would prefer these programs the secretive. they will work better. mbassador negroponte, who gets to say, trust me? only the president of the united states? i do not think the nsa has a reputation that the people will trust. who gets to say, trust me? wax speaking briefly about the issue of trust -- this is not an unknown problem in american government. you put out what the government policy and general procedures are. ongress authorizes them.

if there is standing for a court case of some type, you follow it. i think these should be put in the general way that americans decide big questions that trade off security, resources, and privacy, and civil liberties. but you have to take -- you cannot do it in a completely open way. i am for following the system this country uses to decide the questions. >> plato, in his republic, would have said the nocturnal council, right? some hidden, secret body in the ack. we do not do that. we are a democracy. when you compare the situation 50 years ago, the extent of oversight is huge. jim's lessons are, who was head of the cia 40 years ago, told me once at lunch that there was no oversight committee them. he would go to brief a senator

at lunch about what was going on at the cia. he would start by saying, senator, i would like to tell you some of the things we have been doing lately. the senator said, i would not want to hear that. that was the reaction in those days. if it is intelligence, and you are doing it in the interest of national security, do not risk sharing it widely with people. he felt that just one senator was already too much. we have gone way beyond that now. we are way beyond the gang of eight. rehab committees. we have this and that. e have subjected the intelligence community to an extraordinary amount of oversight. i think sometimes what i hear the press saying is, we would just like to see it all. i do not think we can do that and still have effective national intelligence. >> i am going to try to get a couple of quick questions asked.

i am going to go to the corners. that is all i think we are going to be able to do. >> the 9/11 commission recommended the creation of the office of dni. and also recommended the creation of the privacy and civil liberties board. unfortunately, neither administration seemed too eager to have a robust privacy and civil liberties board, with authority, subpoena power, and reporting requirements created, until it became fully operational this past may, with the confirmation of david padilla as chair. it seems that all of you would suggest that greater transparency be injected into the process. there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation that has come

out about the overall practices of the intelligence community, and particularly nsa. and i am wondering whether you think that the privacy board has now constituted, as we have discussed over prior years in aspen, is an appropriate mediator of the debate that needs to happen, to both inform the public and to provide greater transparency. or whether that is better conducted in some other forum. >> leave it at that for a moment. let us bring in the microphone traveling back there. i am going to take all the questions first. i will add, on the privacy board, it has five members that are supposed to be on 20% time. i think that is one full-time employee to watch the entire intelligence community. >> thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

my was wondering if, entering the era of cyber warfare has acted as a game changer. what i mean by that is, a few years ago, when north korea attacked servers in the u.s., they used servers in britain. they had sent hackers to japan before, which were used in the attack as well. so enemies and threats can come from everywhere and anywhere. the question would be, is there an attitude now that a nation cannot afford to not collect all data available, wherever hey are, and whatever data they are, because they have to defend, and they also have to dissuade enemies, and they also have to guarantee to keep superiority in the world strategic game? >> why don't we start answering those questions. do you need everything? and then we will get the last

question. >> on the civil liberties board, i do not think we should subcontract this function. i think it ought to be done by the leadership of the intelligence community, internally. it should be talking about it. they should be setting the tone. not just, whatever the board says. ciber has made a tremendous difference in the intelligence business, because that is where information goes. and i think that most of us who ave been in the business would feel a lot worse if we missed a key communication that, had we interpreted it correctly, would have saved the lives of our citizens, then if we had not taken the effort to do it. the information is exploding. we have a nagging suspicion

there may be something out there which would save the lives of our fellow citizens, or those in other countries. we are driven by trying to be able to do that, interpreted correctly, and get the information to the right people to save lives. that is the motivation of 99.9% of those in that business. that is what our citizens ought to expect, and they get it. >> i have been given the two-minute warning, so i think this has to be the last. >> ambassador negroponte and admiral blair, thank you for your service to our nation. is it time for a national security act of 2014? and is it time for us to truly sit down and talk about a national security budget, a true national security budget? and would that help or hinder -- would that have helped or hindered you in your previous jobs as dni? >> i think you might just be

running the risk of opening a huge can of worms if you try to come up with new national security act legislation, at least from an intelligence perspective. i would have thought you might advocate new legislation if you felt that the intelligence reform simply was not working. my assessment is that it is working. it is not perfect. it is not ideal. i would not even have advocated it myself, eight or 10 years ago. dni took over the community management staff functions of the cia. the law presented us with that outcome. i think to reopen the debate could be counterproductive. from an intelligence point of

view, i would not advocate for new legislation at this ime. >> it is probably a personal thing, but, looking forward, i think we do need to keep pushing at adjusting to the i negative time, for those -- i am in negative time, for those of you who are not athematicians. i do think we need to think in new ways, and implement in ways that will work. i think the ghosts of j edgar hoover and richard nixon have long been exercised, but they still have sustainable influence on things we are doing. technology has changed. authorities have changed. no big security problem that faces the united states can be solved by one of the national security agencies we have, acting alone. they are all things everybody has to participate in. you have to have a team. you have to have a mission. if we can get toward that over

time, that would be good. >> thank you very much, both of you. national captioning institute] national able satellite corp. 2013] >> we've have more. in the meantime news this morning that president obama has canceled a planned one-on-one meeting with russian president putin. the white house recognized the lack of progress, also citing russiana's disappointing decision to grant temporary asylum to snowden. there has been reaction to his decision.

senate armed services committee ranking member john mccain commented, remember, tell putin after my election, i have more flexibility. the president is in california today. last night he appeared on the tonight show with jay leno. one topic he touched on were the terror alerts touching on the closing of embass eafments >> we're taking every precaution. we had already done a lot to bolster embassy security around the world but especially in the middle east, north africa, where the threats tend to be highest. and whenever we see a threat stream that we think is specific enough that we can take some specific precautions within a certain timeframe then we do so. now, it's a reminder that for all the progress we've made,

getting bin laden, putting al qaeda between afghanistan and pakistan back on its heels, violent radical extremism is still out there. and we've got to stay on top of it. it's also a reminder of how courageous our embassy personnel tend to be because you can never have 100% security in some of these places. the countries themselves sometimes are ill equipped to provide the kind of security that you want even if we reinforce it there's still vulnerabilities. >> the president last night, he is heading to camp pendleton marine corps base today to make remarks and shake hands with soldiers and family members. we'll have live coverage of president obama starting at 3:350 eastern this afternoon. and more now from a recent aspen security forum. unnext, a discussion on national security with nb nbc

investigative reporter moderating a panel including nast general counsel. former house intelligence committee member jane harman and jay johnson. this is just over an hour. the title is national security and i think this one sentence that i drafted the tension between what the law demands and what the national defense requires is in essence what this panel is all about. pleased derate we're to have mike, joined nbc news in 2010 as the national investigative correspondance where as we all know he covered among other thing it is boston marathon bombing and the newtown shooting mask ker. he appears regularly on programs and he is also the author of two best selling books, "new york times" best

selling books hubris, the inside story of spin, scandal and the selling of iraq. and also uncovering clinton, a reporter's story on the monica lewinsky matter. with that, mike. i want to thank you again for assembling such great panels. every year you get "newsmakers" and future "newsmakers" to serve on these panels. last year i served on a panel with paula broad well. while i don't expect any panelists to be making news like that, i think they'll be in the spotlight in some form r another. my understanding that gave him

access to everything that went to the the president's desk. which is pretty ominous when you think about it. and i first encountered him when he was council for 9/11 commission investigating what happened there. to his left, the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia. that has put him at the forefront of investigations on terrorism, and quite a few media leak investigations, leak investigations involving media, a subject we will get to on this panel. he served in the justice department, and was a counsel to then-senator joe biden. j johnson -- jay johnson was general counsel for the defense epartment until last year. that gave him a legal overview of everything the u.s. military and defense department was doing, a lot of which we will

discuss here. he was a general counsel for the air force and assistant u.s. attorney, hired in new york by rudy giuliani, back in the day. jane harman needs no introduction to anybody here. he is the executive director of the woodrow wilson center. served how many terms in congress? ine terms in congress as ranking member on the house intelligence committee for many years, and then the homeland ecurity committee. anthony romero is the executive director of the aclu, and has been a consistent voice for civil liberties on all the issues we are going to talk about. let us start right off with the nsa program. i know some of it was covered in the previous panel, but i want to get into, with raj, how it actually works. i am talking about the metadata

program, which was probably the biggest disclosure by edward snowden, the fact that millions and millions of records of american phone calls were being collected/stored. i will let people use the words they want. by the nsa, under a provision f the patriot act. walk us through exactly how this program works in practice. who has access to it? what can those records be used for? >> thanks for pulling this all together. what i wanted to start out with is that i firmly believe the u.s. government intelligence community, nsa in particular, needs to be as transparent as possible, consistent with our need to protect national security. it is that last piece that makes it so difficult to talk about. i would like to be as

informative and helpful in this discussion as possible. the reason i say that is, it is my job as general counsel to make sure our activities are lawful. i think legitimacy of nsa activities is as important as the lawfulness of those ctivities. even on the prior panel, there was a conflation between programs. there were two programs that were exposed. the 702 program is about the collection of content of communications, e-mails, and phone calls that can only been targeting. that is not what we are talking about. to target the contents of the communication of the u.s. erson under fisa anywhere in

the world requires a showing of robable cause. the 215 program is conducted pursuant to section 215 of the patriot act. it allows the director of the fbi to apply to obtain business records that may be relevant to an authorized national security investigation. the fbi uses this provision for lots of different things. the only program used in connection with the fbi is the business record metadata program we are discussing today. what is that program about? i think it would be helpful for everyone to understand the point of the program, and why it evolved. after the 9/11 attacks, one of the major issues exposed was a scene between domestic and foreign intelligence efforts.

the 9/11 commission focused on this issue. the u.s. government, over the past decade, has made a number of efforts to address this divide. some of them are institutional. there are programs like the telephone metadata program. the idea is help to connect when there is a foreign threat that may have a domestic nexus. how does it work? this program is about the book collection of telephone metadata. what that means is things like numbers dialed, date and time of call, and duration of call. it does not include any subscriber-identifying information. there are no names identified. there is no locational data provided, whether gps data or location information. there is no content.

as to how it is implemented, pursuant to court order, the data comes to nsa on a daily basis. it needs to be put in a segregated database. it cannot be mingled with other data at the end of the day. it has strict access and use controls. let me walk through some of those. >> you talked about transparency. this is called the 215 program, because of the provision in the patriot act. you are in congress when they assed the patriot act. did you understand, when you voted for and supported the patriot act, that it would be used for the bulk collection of everybody's home records in the united states? >> i understood that we needed to collect records in order to, through all the means we have discussed in prior panels -- in order to find those people in

the united states or outside the united states, or linked to people in the united states, who are trying to harm us after 9/11. i voted for a program that authorized people, under strict supervision, to figure out the best way to do that. i do not think, as a sitting member of congress, and someone who knows intelligence but is not a trained intelligence analyst, that i am the best person to decide the parameters of the program. congress narrowed some of the initial proposals, and we sunset at this. it has to be renewed every three years. i think this is important. >> i think people thought it would be used for the purpose raj is explaining. >> business records, phone company records -- exactly how it would be implemented, i trusted people to implement it fairly, because those in

congress who were on the relative committees played -- certainly i did -- a major role in overseeing what was happening. i left the intelligence community at the end of 2006, but headed the homeland committee for another four years. did i oversee every single bit of it? no. do i think that maybe now that there is a much more public debate, congress should narrow some of these provisions? yes. congress did narrow some of these provisions. there was the library provision. a human going to the library and taking out a book -- who ould see that? there are often internets at libraries. in case anybody missed it, a lot of the way communication works between bad guys and bad guys is through the internet. those sites, maybe, ought to be

subject to the provisions of section 215. once it was narrowed to clarify that grandma was exempted, congress did that, in response to public outcry. people have known about this program. it was revealed in the new york times in 2005. george bush partially declassified it. i learned, for the first time, o my extreme dismay, in the first three-and-a-half years of this program which was developed by the bush administration, the president had used his article 2 authorities as the commander-in-chief to run the programs rather than the provisions of law, fica, which congress enacted in 1978, a fact you ought to all know, the foreign intelligence control act, was passed in 191978 in response to the abuses of the nixon administration and the recommendations of the church commission and set up a careful system of the fisa court which

you understand how that works, composed of federal judges, and intelligence committees on the hill which were set up then to monitor. and it worked very well in my view through 2001. and then the bush administration yanked it and ran it a different way. congress after that pulled it back under fisa. and i think -- i believe strongly that maybe the amount of meta dathea is excessive. i'm sure my buddy here thinks this. and that ought to be debated. and maybe the program should be narrowed. but there has been robust oversight over these years. >> let me come back to radge about the actual im plementation. because i want to be very compleer on this. who can access this data and for what specific purposes? >> so just to add one fact. facts are always good. i think this is in a letter that went to the hill yesterday from the justice department.

white papers classified were sent to congress in december of 2009 expressly describing the bulk collection use of this program. i can't speak to any individual member of congress currently now as to their knowledge of the program but i think that fact is an important one. but getting to the use of the program. so in terms of access. access is strictly controlled. and what does that mean? so in order to create the data one has to have a reasonable art clabble suspicion that a particular selector -- a phone number -- has a tie to a specific terrorist group that is identified in a court order. >> so just a terrorist group. so if kneel mcbride calls you up tomorrow and says i've got a foreign ees uponnage investigation going on and i think my target might be about to leave the united states, i need to check out this phone number to see whether he is in communication with a coconspirator, you're going to give him the information from that data collection? >> no. it's illegal. >> how do you get the information? > ask again.

>> we're friends but not that close. how would you get the information fror that investigation that you need? >> well, let me back up from the specifics for a minute and quickly get to that. so in any investigation, post 9/11, the f.b.i. and the intelligence community and other government actors are working seemlessly in a way that didn't really happen before 9/11. when jay was general counsel we would have the there were weeks when we had many occasions when we had to talk. we work closely with the military, with admiral mcraven's community, down in norfolk, with vare command forces. so there are conversations occurring across the defense

intelligence law enforcement communities in ways which are helpful in terms of per missible information sharing and dot connecting. to your specific question, if there was a -- if i understand your hypothetical, if there was an operational terrorist within the united states, i would hope that we would already have their number. >> not as terrorists. i said a spifmente >> well, there certainly have been examples where there were individuals in this country. we prosecuted a couple in my office just in the last year. one who was here as an unregistered agent from the isi from pakistani intelligence, another here at the behest of the syrian intelligence. those individuals came to our attention, investigations ensued, and we were able to obtain the information we needed. >> but i'm asking a specific question about how you get records of phone numbers ongoing investigation that is have real time consequences.

could be a spy investigation, a drug cartel that is importing guns on to the streets of alexandria and were used in five murders in the last several months. you need this information right away and you want to know who is making phone calls to this -- who is making these phone calls. how do you get the information? >> well, i think -- >> you can get it. can't you? >> yeah. and we do get it. >> by speenavement >> by subpoena, from an informant. from any number of ways. so that in sort of garden variety criminal investigations, our ability to identify where an alleged bad guy live ors their phone number, or their e-mail address, our ability to find it is not all that difficult. >> and not all that time consuming. if you need it for an ongoing investigation, operational, somebody is about to leave the country, you need that phone number in order to get a search warrant. you can get it pretty quick

lifment can't you? >> it would depend on a particular case but in contrast to what radge is describing, which is sort of macro issues and bulk collection, your example i think contemplates a known individual who has been under the scrutiny or the view of law enforcement or other agencies. and so at the microlevel it's >> i guess the question is since he can get the information he needs pretty quickly, for a lot of serious investigations that have operational components, why can't we use the same method for the terrorism investigation that you are collecting this for? >> i think the bigger question is why can't the data state with the providers? >> this is what happens.

>> using a hypothetical example i think would be helpful. after the 9/11 attacks, we realize that one of the peratives had been living in the u.s. for some time. we learned he had been receiving calls from a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. i think that is a good example. we note that is a bad number with reasonable suspicion and ties to a terrorist organization. if we want to do figure out where that number may be onnected, the contents of that would need to go to multiple providers to ask of them. they would have to do a search against their records.

they will bring the data back, put it together in short order. so there's operational consequences there. two, in order to do the sort of analytics that need to happen on that data, the data needs to be aggregated to most effectively do that in short time. so with three dmpt providers, there will also be additional steps of bringing the data back and trying to analyze it in a short order. the third point i would make is to date there is no legal obligation for any of these companies to hold onto the data. they do it for their own commercial purposes. tomorrow we could turn around and any of these companies could decide that they do not want to hold onto these records. we could be facing a situation where we would not have the data readily available. these are the things i would have to think through. >> what i was getting at is that you have been saying. there ought to be specific targeted risk -- requests.

they said that would create all sorts of problems. oes he have a point? >> no. i should say that i was last year debating and now i am debating friends who serve in the obama administration. so much has changed and so much has not changed. the program, whether it is legitimate or not, the answer is illegitimate and illegal in our mind. section 215 and that's action 702. let's break it down. it is important to read the words of the law -- elevant. it defies the knowledge or understanding of the word relevant when you are

ollecting every single phone call, metadata, we will get into that. how is that limited to relevance when you say we have all the phone numbers that are made to and from. it had me think that the training and relevance -- metadata. metadata is not content. metadata can give a lot of content. tells how often i call my mother. who i call on the government hose private cell phones i happen to have who i do not call at the office because we cannot want a log of my phone

call, but i have a private cell phone. we want keep that somewhat between us. when compiled in complete information can give you a very full picture of what my day is like. let's also talk about section 702. hone calls from overseas and oreigners that do not have the same kind of standard. i have called them. i have direct phone numbers. mr. a lock keys of father who was killed by the american government by drones, including his 16-year-old son. i might have phone numbers for david hicks in the guantanamo.

anwar al backee, his 16-year-old son, also an american citizen killed by drones. let's get jay into this game. i happen to have the phone number of mr. his father in yemen. i have the phone numbers for the wife and brother-in-law in iran. we represented mr. mohammed in the 9/11 commissions, the 9/11 trials at guantanamo. we have contact with his wife and his brother-in-law, and mr. al-masri who was for toured. those are all individuals that i have electricity mate phone numbers. these are all cases in which i have been involved with. i call them. they call me. as an american citizen, i have a right and an expectation that my communication for which i'm doing my work to defend their right are not to be intercepted under any program.

if you are to tell me that my communication had not been caught up in the surveillance program and that none of these programs -- phone numbers i made are not part of your database, i wouldn't believe you because i actually think these are the types of people you are targeting. i have a legitimate right to interact with these individuals. have a right and privacy to my two medications. >> why can't anthony communicate with his clients without you collecting the records? >> i would say anthony absolutely can to make it with his clients. he has a right to do that. his clients have a right to do that. i disagree with anthony to say the program is even legal. in his opinion, the program is

a legal. in the opinion of all three branches of government, the program is not illegal. the peoples representatives in congress, the court, the pfizer court, and the executive branch all believe this program is illegal. this is important to put in perspective to things. the fact that a phone call is made to some number that is known to the telephone company and lots of other people, there is no expectation in the duration of that call it self. clearly, there is an expectation of privacy for which you need a warrant. the reality is that the surveillance program is probably the most regulated national security program we have. the two programs that have been eclassified are regulated by

the executive branch. congressional oversight has been aware how the executive branch has interpreted section 15 and the judicial branch because they have approved t. that aspect of the judicial branch has been designated by congress to hear these applications has approved of the manner in which this program is being implemented so there is the equilibrium. if our national political leadership decides they want to change the equilibrium, that is their prerogative and responsibility. >> i want to move the discussion along. we have a lot of other subjects to go to. i have two more quick questions on this subject. number one, the verizon order that was disclosed that kicked

off this whole controversy is due to expire tomorrow. is the nsa seeking a renewal. >> i have nothing to say today about that. >> what you have something to say tomorrow? >> i will. >> will it be modified? [laughter] >> i cannot say anymore at the moment. where can i say something in efense of anthony? i want him to continue to love me. i think there should be an expectation of protection, of lawyer and client communications. that has always been the tradition. it is generally respected. there was a supreme court case referenced this morning. there is no constitutionally protected expectation that phone numbers called will not be disclosed.

that is the basis on which we should begin to talk about this. but coming back to congress, ongress can narrow whatever is the standard to go before the fisa court to get an individualized warrant. i'm sure it will be revisited. it would have required that of the court -- that the case deal with specific facts creating a reasonable suspicion that a person is of a foreign power before the records could be seized and monitored. hat is a tighter standard. i think congress will be looking at, in some near

lifetime, tightening the standard. i think we need a national debate about this. we are having one right now. >> the case i was referencing this morning and just now, 1979, how many years has it been? right? it is a primitive register. it would track only beings dialed. it is vastly different than what we saw in 1979. let's let the court decide whether that decision is relevant or upholds the met adata program. that's exactly what the purpose of our lawsuit will be that we filed. let's also attack the three graverages of government. excuse me. i know i love you, jane, but you got to forgive me. the fisa court, come on. 12 judges. 11 of them republicans. right?

there is no one representing the privacy of the people. it is only the government who is represented in the pfizer court. 35 years, three opinions published. >> is there any form of surveillance the nsa can conduct that you would approve of? >> sure. absolutely. it has to be focused on the subject of the surveillance. robable cause. >> who would approve it? >> doesn't have to be in secret? >> a revamp of the pfizer court, totally fine. even the chief justice says we need an adversarial process. there is no adversarial process. >> who is the adversary when the government goes in and says, we have a phone number being called by an al qaeda operative, we need to see who that person is right away. who is the adversary who goes before the court to argue? >> you can easily appoint an

ombudsman whose job it is to preserve and privacy rights of the individual. it should not be the aclu. it could be a government official. >> last question for now on this subject. we can debate whether privacy rights, met adata, are covered by the constitution or not. but americans do have an expectation that their public officials are going to tell them the truth. when, in march, senator wyden asked james clapper, if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the n.s.a. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans, and he answered no, sir, did anybody from the n.s.a. come into your office and say, we have a problem here ? a director has just misled the congress and the public about what we are doing? >> let me make a couple of points. > how about the answer to that

question? >> yes. the first one is just facts. facts are important in the questions as well, as well as the answers. >> i agree with jay. >> he's the director of national intelligence, not n.s.a., so he's not my client. >> talking about what your agency was doing. >> i think and it is available a public record, he's sent record to the intelligence committee explaining what happened after that moment. what i would say, and i don't know, but i would say when a long time honorable servants ake a mistake, sometimes it is a mistake. however, the premise of your question is true. the public expects honest answers. >> i would just add, i have the highest regard for jim clapper. i wish we could roll back the videotape and his answer had

been, i cannot answer that question in a public setting. if we moved into a classified setting, i will answered completely. >> let's move on. there are other subjects. you have been very involved in leak investigations. this justice department has brought more leak prosecutions than any other in american history and the record shows very little to show for it at this moment. you have one success. last week when the justice department issued his new guidelines for the press and how it will handle investigations and saying that a few of the tactics and techniques that justice has used, the secret subpoena of

the phone records, the use of a search warrant to get private e-mails from a reporter under the pretext that he was in violation of the espionage act will not be used anymore. in the last paragraph, they say cases involving the unauthorized disclosure of information are inherently difficult to investigate and prosecute. they require careful use of individuals and proof that may result in further harmful disclosures. it sounds like a recognition that much of what this justice department has been doing, including your office, has been misplaced. >> not surprisingly, i didn't quite read it that way, but i am happy to answer those questions. let me step back for just a

second. it is true my office has been involved in several leak investigations and prosecutions. the context for that from those of you from the west coast who do not have to travel east of the nation's capital, the part that my district covers is home to the largest footprint of the oust government in the country. we are home to the pentagon, the cia, the intelligence community, we have the world's largest naval base. we have hundreds of government installations scattered throughout our district. we have thousands of acres of federal land that partially means we have a bit of a national security bull's-eye on our back. t also means that when there are issues involving the unauthorized disclosure of national defense and information which i will talk about in a second is a much

broader group of classified information that my district is just sort of the obvious place to bring the investigation. just a bit of context. that is why we are frequently involved in these cases. number two, i think context in terms of numbers is helpful. the numbers are not as large as some of the numbers thrown out in terms of the collection system. in the average year, the justice department brings between the the and 75,000 investigations. in the last five years, the justice department has conservatively opened 250, 300 50,000 investigations. against that backdrop, there have been a half dozen or so investigations into allegations of the unauthorized disclosure of the national defense

information. so i think it's helpful just to put into context there's a whole lot else we have that occupies our time and attention and our day jobs beyond this, you know, small but important aspect of enforcing the law. just a last data point before getting to my specific question. uch has been written and talked about about the overclassification since 9/11. i think there is really no daylight between people and all sides and viewpoints that the government classifies too much information. i think the president has called for lower amounts of lassification. that said, we use that term as a term of art. it is a common miss representation that -- that is not the case.

there is lots of information that is classified as may be sensitive that you read about in the paper every day. it may be an annoyance to government officials. it may cause some level of alarm and concern by various constituents, but it doesn't mean that it's a violation of federal law. the handful of case that my office is focused on are a very small subset of the overall universe of classified information. as the folks here on the panel know, that is referred to as n.d.i., national defense information. in order to bring a criminal case for the unidentified release of n.d.i., it's a fairly high threshold. you need to show this is information that is critical to the national defense, the release of which could benefit a foreign government or hurt the united states. >> i think you have gone

overboard. >> i don't believe we have. i think the attorney general and others have talked about the reason for the increase in the leak investigation. i think the reasons that have been given art coupled. from the cia and others, it has increased in recent years. that is a reflection of a ouple of things. a whole lot more people have access to classified information today than they did before 9/11. number two, this has been discussed on the hill and i am not tech savvy enough to use technical terms here, but essentially internal i.t. systems make it somewhat easier to be able to determine the source of a particular leak. that is increasingly true today than it was 10 or 15 years

ago. >> in one of those cases, you have sought to compel the new york times. he has said under no circumstances will he testify and he will go to jail if he has to. it does seem to be somewhat at a various with the comments last week. if you prevail, are you prepared to put a new york times reporter in jail for refusing to testify? >> {a a couple of things about that. first of all, the administration, including the attorney general, strongly supports and has for several years a shield bill that has been pending.

>> you have argued that before. > if you will allow me, my understanding of the reporter's privilege -- shield bill, i am told was free to boost esterday and a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the senate which we get to in a second. my understanding of the bill and i have not read it carefully -- >> i'm not asking about the bill. i am asking about the case. >> right. i think i heard, is there an inconsistency if you support the media shield and that there is not an absolute right for ny person, reporter or non-reporter to not provide evidence of a crime? my understanding is that bill

sets up a test where a federal judge, based on the type of case, the criminal case, would make certain balancing tests. the bill does not say a reporter has no obligation to ever go into court and testify. he media ranks you mentioned are really important. if they are significant and certainly will change the way we do business to some extent. those were a reflection of the attorney general that often times in washington and elsewhere, policy debates are as much about means as ends. many times they are shared ands both sides agree to, but we may have friendly disagreements about the means to achieve those shared ends. so what they did over the last month or so is to have six or

seven meetings, sit down with 30 or 40 members of the fourth state to sort of roll up his sleeves and hear, ok, what is it giving you heartburn about the way we're doing business? what are the means we've used historically that perhaps should be revised? there are a couple of them which are significant. i've not canvassed the editorial pages of the nation's papers and magazines, but the response seems to have been more generally positive to these new regs. i don't know your own view, mike. here are two real big changes in terms of how we will do business. number one, if the government -- well, let me back up. it has always been the case that seeking records or testimony or information from a reporter is an absolute last resort. there has to be a compelling need for the investigation. if i can get the information through another source, i am not allowed to ask a reporter a question or ask them to testify

in the grand jury. there is an exhaustion requirement which has been strengthened. the attorney general himself or herself needs to now sign off. but critically, the department now, if we wish to issue a subpoena for a tape of a demonstration outside of an embassy, that is an unusual situation. >> can i bring you back? do you really want to win this case and be faced with whether not you should put the reporter in jail? >> the case is pending. >> and if you win? >> it is a hypothetical. >> do you want to win? >> i need to see what will happen. >> here are the two big changes. f we are going to subpoena a

reporter, we need to give advance notice to that reporter. whether it is to the reporter directly, obviously you would have seen the subpoena. but if you're going to a third arctic, you have to tell the reporter and the reporter has the ability to object. number two, and i think this is in reference to the search warrant case. the new regulation says that unless a reporter is the target of the investigation, there will not be a search warrant sought or e-mail or phone records. the regulations make it very clear that reporters are not going to be prosecuted ever for going about their important business of reporting on the news. >> can we each speak for a second?

>> very quickly. >> anthony will rebut what i'm about to say and focus on a lot of this for 17 years and i still focus on it. i think the press is by and large very responsible. i participated in a few phone calls to heads of offices, saying, please do not public information. let's understand what harmful means. sources and methods, when revealed, can result in people dying. they can also resort and our capability going forward against a target, let's say the iranian nuclear program, being compromised. it is not ok, certainly not ok with me to have published information. i am extremely worried about some of the snowden stuff that s not come out yet which may

how sources we have in our current efforts to keep america afe. let's understand it. that does not mean a reporter should go to jail, but the context is there is a responsible press by and large. i certainly respect that. we have to find a better way to stop leaks of material that compromise our sources and methods. >> i want to move onto another subject that is very take and important. that is drone strikes and the future of our war on terror. it has all been predicated on the authorization to use military force after 9/11 which identified our enemy as al qaeda. you gave a major speech in xford last year looking toward the future.

but i am hung up still on the phrase, associated forces. who are the associated forces of al qaeda who are our enemy right now? >> well, you are correct that for the last four years while i was in office, the interpretation that we adopted in the executive branch referred to al qaeda, the taliban, and the associated orces. hat was an interpretation of the executive ranch that was endorsed by the courts specifically to include the concept of the force. it was also an interpretation that the congress last year in section 1021 embraced.

there were some in congress who believed we should not just rely on the lawyers interpretation. let's codify it expressly, which they did in section 1021 which engendered some itigation. they vacated the injunction in that case. when i was in office, i want to point out that when we conducted military operations pursuant to that authority in places outside of iraq and afghanistan, like yemen and the horn of at for care, every strike was briefed to congress after the strike. i would talk regularly to the lawyers on the armed services committee about how we were

construing that authority so that they understood how it was being applied. during the time i was in office, that authority generally worked against al qaeda, osama bin laden being the most prominent example. other members of core al qaeda. and al qaeda-affiliated elements. >> there were three associated forces when you're in office. >> those were the three that i had the occasion to evaluate most often. here were other instances when i would conduct a legal evaluation where we did not go forward with a specific operation, but those are the

three most prominent examples that we regularly briefed to congress. you referred to my oxford speech. i think we are at an inflection point as one journalist put it where we should no longer consider ourselves in a traditional armed conflict against al qaeda and affiliated groups. i think benghazi is a prominent example of what i am talking about. you cannot label the benghazi attacked as something conducted by al qaeda and associated forces. it was more of a mixed bag. in this period where we're head in addition new direction, we need to evaluate in congress what new authorities our counterterrorism professionals might need. and we're not just talking about drone strikes. we're talking about the ability to conduct interrogations and other types of things that domestic law enforcement, that the intelligence community should have to go forward with to the future. >> can i add something to this? i just want to give a shout out to jay. while he was in government and since, in talking about this, harold has another example of somebody who has been fearless,

and it's not easy. at the wilson center last week, we had a national conversation. whether it be amended or ended. bob corker, a republican from tennessee, senator, the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee, came down to the wilson center and said croppings is being irresponsible. this statute which i voted for, was never anticipated to be in effect 12 years later and be the basis for all of our tactics against the bad guys orever endeavor. -- forever and ever. this is a debate congress should have and if it isn't being having congress, the larger society should have it. what is our basis for our going forward view on who is attacking us and what tactics are appropriate? what is the narrative? let's not forget that. what does the united states stand for?

i doubt anyone really disagrees with that. i think it is just time to get on with it. i want to applaud jay. > my former colleague wrote it -- wrote an excellent book, kill or capture. learning about afterwards, if i was catholic i would have to go to confession. what did you feel guilty about? >> any time i or any other national security official had to sign off on something that eads to lethal force, that hould leave you with a heavy heart. period.

irrespective of who the objective is. i want to talk about the op-ed written today. i read it. the reality is that in a congressionally authorized conflict, on occasion people who are not targeted by the strike are killed. the good news to the extent that there is any is with our modern technology, we are more precise. collateral damage is minimized. our government in may, because a number of officials, including the president, believes that if the u.s. government takes a life of a u.s. citizen, the government should acknowledge that. acknowledged that the u.s. government was responsible for his son and others. the way the attorney general put it, they were not specifically targeted. the point i want to make is that for any responsible official of our government nvolved in counterterrorism,

you read an op-ed like that and you get a pit in your stomach and read it with a heavy heart. if you don't, you should not be involved in making these decisions. >> i will let you answer, but there is limited time for questions from the audience. if anyone wants to pose one, now is the time to do so. have one right over here. >> from foreign affairs magazine, the new york times has likened the fisa court to an almost parallel supreme court in that it is issuing decisions and constitutional interpretations that will shape intelligence practices in the future. it you you agree with that characterization? should the fisa court be playing that role?

or should the supreme court be taking on some of those cases? >> the fisa court is operating as congress established it in 1978. i think everyone knows how it operates. these are federal, article three judges. there is a review that has ruled rarely, but it has. i think that narrative enerally sets out there. few applications are rejected and there is a handful of people in this room who have practiced. there is no way that is an accurate representation. i think the challenge to the government is how do we improve public confidence in a process that is working as intended, working pretty well. here is a full-time staff that

is very competent. i think that is something that is out of their. a couple of points. one, if somebody were to make critical side, it is rare a title iii is rejected as well. that is just the nature of the business. applications are so well put together through the process. but two, in recent weeks, we started to open up a little bit more to discuss how the process works. there is something many of you have probably heard of called a recopy. before we file an application with a fifth, we file effectively a draft application that can be days, weeks, months before a final application is submitted. there is a process with the court and with the judges on what improvements they would require, what improvements they think need to be necessary, and the government takes that into account. final submission might not be made, and even when it is made, it accounts for what the judges would have put in originally. there is a legitimate debate as to whether reform should be made.

i would just like to make that point. > a question right here. >> before that, let's let nthony chime in. >> there is a vigorous process. let's make it a real vigorous. let's have an adversarial process in our legal system. if you think it is tough to practice before now, i would love to be opposite you. i think that's the way our courts normally work. i think the fact is the numbers have not been revealed. think it is fascinating all of you cosponsors of this institute for him are now asking congress and the court to release more data on that information. finally understood that your self interest is corporation aligned with your consumers rivacy interest.

you are late to the party but t is good that you got there. let me fall off of the limb. i have been watching this whole debate about edward snowden. maybe we can goose this question. i think he did this country a service. i have not said that publicly until this point. i think he did his country a service by starting a debate that was anemic and left to government officials were people did not understand fully what was happening. i think regardless of where you come out on it, we have a debate. we have six lawsuits that have been filed on the nsa program. we have congress holding hearings yesterday, saying, wait a minute, that is not the law but i signed. it included the author of the bill, mr. sensenbrenner. i find it rather troublesome when i find the white house press secretary goes to such great lengths to say that he is not a human rights activists and he is not a whistleblower. who made him king of the human

rights committee? right? no, i know, i'm starting it. >> excuse. i can't let this stand without giving neil macbride, who has criminally charged -- >> let him respond. >> i think it is a bad message for us to send to people who decide to take the law into their own hands, they are doing a public disservice. >> the system does not work. we have sued seven times to get this before a proper court. we were kicked out. the clapper versus amnesty international court, where the justice department lawyer said it was a cascade of speculation when our client said, we think our data has been collected by the government. since we had no proof we had no standing. if it had not been for lack of trying. the only way we can get before the court, is because mr.

snowden leaked the fact that we are clients of the verizon business network. guess what. he fixed my program, and our democracy, regardless of whether or not you think he broke the law or whether he should be held to the fourth circuit, i think our country is better as a result of the revelation. >> our country needs a debate, but i do not think -- >> that is -- >> this is completely different. this is a kid who had nothing to do with formulating the policy, from my life, totally self-centered and narcissistic, but anyway, it's not just the information about these programs, much of which was in the public domain. it is a whole bunch of other stuff which compromises ongoing investigations. and one other point. this guy needs to seek public asylum from other countries because he would be persecuted here, it's total nonsense. a lot of americans support what he did. he should come back and face a fair trial. he's been charged, but he

hasn't been convicted. >> private manning's treatment before he was prosecuted by our government was torture. now, i want to say that i may not agree. we have not decided whether or not he'll defend mr. snowden. we had nothing to do with his foreign asylum application. that he can go find elsewhere. i will say that i am personally grateful that we are having a debate we should've had long ago. i have been in my job 13 years. i tried to leave before 9/11. we have tried to have this debate all throughout. we have not had the hearings in congress. we have not had the lawsuits that have been filed. we never had our european allies who now raise questions about whether the government's efforts were with our allies. for whatever it's worth, i think we are better off today, and now, knowing about the nsa program than we were back in

march of this year. > do you want to weigh in? >> i mean, briefly, just to say that the case anthony mentions, of course, is an ongoing case. i can't talk about that specifically. what i can say very clearly and unambiguously and forcefully is the justice department does not pursue whistle blowers. that kenard has been, to use raj's phrase, has been used. the one example he alluded to, my district prosecuted and convicted a former c.i.a. official last year, an individual who had signed nine nondisclosure agreements over the course of his career. he was convicted and keep pled guilty. i admitted he outed the nasme a covert agent and a highly classified program. he talked to people in the intelligence community, many of

whom are sitting here. i am always told that the most damaging leaks are outing covert agents. the case that we prosecuted involved both. he never claimed he was a whistleblower. that was a self-serving thing hat was claimed. when he was sentenced, the judge who was the judge in the other case said to him, you are not a whistleblower. >> we have a question or in the outing to us had the microphone. >> i love a good debate. in q2 the panelists. i am with human rights first. the theme seems to be about information. i want to ask you about a slightly different topic which is torture. the intelligence community did a study of torture after 9/11. it's a comprehensive document, the most produced to date. they searched through three

million documents, or 25,000 footnotes. those that were adopted have not yet been voted for declassification. the reports in the press are that the c.i.a. is pushing back very hard on that. isn't this something the american people deserve to now? there was a similar study for the military's role. that has been made public. >> do you want to take a crack at that? >> i think the answer is yes. i think the report that was done by the senate armed services committee is a very valuable report. i personally had a number of takeaways from it. i think that the legal reviews that were done to authorize a particular interrogation were not done in a proper way. i think the senior lawyer of the department of defense should have been more personally involved in

conducting those reviews. i think that is an important study. we ought to declassify as much of it as we can. >> i agree. >> any other questions here on this side? and then we will continue. >> i was going to ask gene, how do we ensure a robust debate on public policy issues that involve intelligence operations when they are classified within certain members of congress? the oversight committees has not share with the other members of congress. >> to tradition has always been that members of the intelligence committees which are leadership committees -- you don't get on there unless your party puts you there -- were trusted with a lot of secrets that weren't shared with others.

the reason was, and i come back to this, sources and methods have to be protected. i often joke that congress does not leap because we don't have any information, but actually, some members of congress do, and i was one of those members. should congress nonetheless even with a higher level of information shared only with the intelligence committee onduct robust debates? you bet. congress is capable of doing this. are they going to do this in the near term? i doubt it. that is what bob was saying. it is a huge abdication of responsibility. this is a bipartisan rant, folks. it will take a bipartisan group -- i think starting with the intel committees, and those folks seem to get along with each other -- pushing this thing. there should be a debate. somebody suggested maybe we need a national security act of 2014. think about that. the national security act, which is the framework for most of our security apparatus, was

passed in 1947. no business on the planet could operate within 1947 business model. we changed part of it in 2004 when we adopted intelligence reform. i was part of it. i'm very proud of what we did. it wasn't perfect. it was opposed by don rumsfeld and the chairman of the house armed services committee, so we had to make some compromises. at least it made a modern horizontal structure. congress should revisit this issue and be responsible. maybe out here in washington and other places like the wilson center, we ought to start that debate. anthony romero is part of that debate. he knows that. we have had lots of programs where he has participated. we need the point of view of the press and the folks who have been in and are in our intelligence community, we need to public perception. the last point is that security

and liberty are not a zero sum ame. they are a positive sum game or a negative sum game. if you don't like where we are, let's have another attack on america, and then we'll shred the fourth amendment, and that would be a catastrophe. >> last word, jim johnson. >> i think when it comes to leaks, there really is a big picture point that has to be made. we have a 9/11 or fort hood or boston marathon and everybody in washington ask, what happened? what failed, how can we do better? they are not conducting -- connecting the dots enough. we have to do a better job. and then you get a manning or a snowden and people say, what happened? how can we do better? you connected to many dots. you gave too many people access to information. we got to stop that. the pendulum swings back the other way. the reality is, and a lot of people don't want to hear this, if they are somebody determined

to commit a criminal act, if here was a summer intern in my office, determined to get into my office, and snatched from my desktop a top-secret document and give it away, you'll probably be able to figure out a way to do that and to break through all the barriers that exist. we don't necessarily need to think about changing national security policy in reaction to one criminal event. >> they will have to avoid criminal prosecution. they want to avoid criminal prosecution by neil. anyway, on that point, we're out of time. i want to thank our panelists for a great discussion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> and here's a look at some of our programming coming up. later today, "new york times" photojournalist michael camber talks about the book, "photo journalists on war: the untold stories from iraq 10 years after the u.s. invasion of iraq." as baghdad bureaus are being closed, he discussed lessons learned from iraqi war coverage and its effect on journal journalists. that discussion comes up today at 6:00 p.m. eastern. after that, c-span will host a live town hall discussion to examine media coverage of wars. topics include conflict and media and national security. we will also be taking your calls and getting reaction on facebook and twitter. and that's all tonight starting at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. the associated press reporting today the kremlin is disappointed with president obama's decision to cancel his

moscow summit with russian president vladimir putin. this moves white house dismay over russia's decision to grant temporary as electric to edward snowden, the man who leaked details of the surveillance sprams. the two presidents were supposed to meet next month when president obama will visit russia for the g-20 economic summit. this morning on "washington journal," we spoke with a reporter shortly after this story broke. host: joining us live on the phone is a reporter following the story for politico, the deputy white house editor. thanks very much for being with us. explain the announcement and why this morning. guest: this move has been in the works for a couple of days. we were told by the press secretary earlier this week to expect a formal announcement over the next few days about the state of the trip. a lot of questions to this point about what would happen. it seemed as though putin's move to grant temporary asylum to snowden was sort of a thumb

in the u.s., comes after a series of disappointing meetings with the russians, and so it seemed as though it was likely the white house might want to send a sign by not setting up a special meeting with putin during the g-20 visit. host: let me read to you a portion of the statement from the white house press secretary that came out just about 40 minutes ago. the press secretary saying that gven our lack of progress on issues such as missile defense and arms control, trade and commercial relations, global security issues and human rights in civil society in the last 12 months, we have informed the russian government that we believe it will be more constructive to postpone the summit until we have more results from our shared agenda. guest: that's right. of course, another -- after that was mentioned in there, it was the decision by russia to grant snowden asylum as well. carney saying that russia's disappointing decision to grant snowden temporary asylum, or the fact that we considered in assessing the current state of our bilateral relationship, that's a quote from the statement, and so, of course,

you've been getting repeated questions about this, and as late as last night, the president was saying he was disappointed in the move. host: the president will still travel to st. petersburg, russia, and explain the significance, the difference between that summit meeting and this bilateral in moscow. guest: that's right. the g-20 summit has been scheduled for st. petersburg, and the president will travel to that. of course, putin will be there as well. the significance is he's not going to meet with him separately. there's not going to be a separate bilateral summit where they discuss issues. you know, it will be interesting to note over the past few months when there have been meetings with obama and putin, the kind of tension we noted. for instance, earlier this year, when the two had a special bilateral appearance, you know, at this point, given not just the increased tensions during that appearance, but what's happened since then, the releaseship seems to have devolved just a bit. again, the white house stressing that this is not a

cancellation as much as it is a postponement. this is how they're framing it, until a time when the meeting might be more productive. host: rebecca, two developments in the new york teams. first an editorial this morning that basically said the president should not meet with russian president putin. of course, now we know that will not happen. but also, the reporting of a meeting that will take place this friday that will include secretary of state john kerr and i defense secretary chuck hagel here in washington, meeting with their russian counterparts. will the meeting still take place? guest: that's right. the white house saying today that meeting with kerry, hagel, and the russian counterparts, will take place as scheduled,, and you know, the way they're framing it as, they'll discuss how we can best make progress moving forward. so, again, also not indicating there has not been a complete break of some kind, but definitely sending a strong message to the russians that the bilateral relationship has been harmed by a latest series of moves. host: and in diplomat talk, let me just go back to the statement that you referred to,

and we talked about it earlier, where the white house called russia's disappointing decision on edward snowden. what do you read into that? >> that's right. we've heard that language again and again from jay carney during a white house briefing. he's repeatedly said the u.s. is deeply disappointed. the president again saying last night that they are disappointed. you know, there had been a lot of complaints from u.s. officials about the way the russians handle this had move, even though there were signs it might be coming. for instance, they weren't gven a heads up it was actually taking place, that they were surprised by the timing of it, and so a sense that the relationship is not working well behind the scenes, apart from the public displays, but not necessarily working well behind the scenes either. host: what about the one-on-one relationship between president putin and president obama? guest: it's been interesting to see the personal dynamic between the two. again, kind of flashing back to that press conference earlier this year when the two kind of, you know, agreed to disagree on the subject of syria.

you could not get more tense in the body language between them. it seemed to be very cold. you know, the president also compressing a personal disappointment in feeling as though, you know, the russians had not lived up to what he had expected of not necessarily in treating the u.s. the way that they had expected based on relations in the past. the two men, again, not a particularly warm dynamic and there was a lot of discussion after their last appearance about the notable tension between them. host: reading from the top of the statement, " we reached a conclusion that there's not enough recent progress to hold a bilateral meeting with russian president newton, so the meeting sorussian president putin. the meeting has been canceled " guest: